4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Ryazan.
5.  On 17 February 2000 the applicant filed with the Bilibinskiy District Court of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (“the District Court”) an action against the regional pension authorities and the district social security authority (Отделение Пенсионного фонда РФ по Чукотскому Автономному Округу и Отдел социальной защиты населения Администрации Билибинского района) for recovery of arrears of her old-age pension. She also requested to index-link the arrears.
6.  As the District Court consistently failed to schedule a hearing, the applicant filed a complaint about its lack of action to the Supreme Court of Russia. On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Court in the final instance refused to consider the complaint on its merits as out of the court's competence.
7.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 13 November 2000.
8.  On 13 November 2000 the judge failed to appear, and the hearing was fixed for 19 January 2001.
9.  On 9 January 2001 the District Court decided not to consider the applicant's complaints about the judge's inaction ruling that such a complaint could be entertained only by the Judicial Qualifications Board (Квалификационная коллегия судей).
10.  On 19 January 2001 the hearing was adjourned until 22 March 2001 on account of the applicant's failure to appear. The applicant's counsel attended the hearing.
11.  The Government submitted that on 16 February 2001 the applicant applied for supervisory review seeking to quash the above decision to adjourn the hearing on account of certain procedural flaws. The applicant submitted an application for supervisory review with the date shown as 2 February 2001.
12.  On 22 March 2001 the District Court partly granted the applicant's claims. In the same hearing the applicant's counsel informed the court of her actual place of residence which differed from the one indicated in the original statement of claim.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal. She submitted that in her appeal she had complained, among other things, about the first-instance court's decisions to adjourn the hearings.
14.  The applicant's appeal was first fixed to be considered by the Chukotka Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 17 May 2001 but was re-scheduled for 19 July 2001.
15.  On 19 July 2001 the Regional Court overturned the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination to the District Court. The applicant's complaint about the adjournment decisions was not addressed.
16.  On 23 July 2001 the case was transferred to the Presidium of the Regional Court for consideration pursuant to the applicant's application for supervisory review of 16 February 2001.
17.  On 1 August 2001 the application for supervisory review was rejected, and the case was returned to the District Court.
18.  On 17 August 2001 the District Court fixed the first hearing for 5 December 2001. The court invited the applicant's counsel to provide the applicant's actual address.
19.  On 28 August 2001 the applicant's counsel informed the District Court that the applicant resided at the address indicated in the statement of claim.
20.  On 5 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned till 21 January 2002 on account of the applicant's failure to appear. The applicant's counsel attended the hearing.
21.  On 18 January 2002 the applicant applied for supervisory review of the above decision to adjourn the hearing.
22.  On 21 January 2002 the hearing had been adjourned till 26 February 2002 on account of the applicant's failure to appear. Her counsel attended the hearing, amended the claims and informed the court that the applicant resided in Ryazan. He was invited to provide the applicant's full address.
23.  On 4 February 2002 the applicant applied for supervisory review of the above decision to adjourn the hearing. On 12 February 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court called up the case.
24.  On 9 October 2002 the application for supervisory review was rejected, and the case was returned to the District Court.
25.  The applicant submitted that in December 2002 she had requested the District Court to inform her of the date of the next hearing but received no precise answer.
26.  On 14 May 2003 the applicant filed an amendment to the original statement of claim indicating a new group of respondents.
27.  On 8 July 2003 the District Court held a hearing in presence of the applicant's counsel, in which it accepted the amended claims and adjourned.
28.  On 28 November 2003 the applicant's counsel informed the court that the applicant wished to have the case heard in her absence. The hearing was adjourned till 25 December 2003 on account of the applicant's failure to identify the new respondents.
29.  On 7 December 2003 the applicant notified the District Court that she had already determined the new respondents in her amendment to the statement of claim of 14 May 2003.
30.  On 25 December 2003 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part.
31.  On 18 March 2004 the Regional Court heard the case on appeal and amended the judgment, awarding to the applicant a total amount of 40,879 roubles and 73 kopecks.